Was Jesus the God of the Old Testament?

klutedavid said:

Hello Butch.

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word, malak, is translated as angel, when malak in the Hebrew actually means messenger, i.e., someone who is sent by a king or God. When the Old Testament refers to 'the angel of the Lord', I read that as the messenger of the Lord. To use the English word, 'angel', in the translation of the Hebrew, forces the text to say something the text is not saying.

There are passages in the Old Testament where the messenger of the Lord appears to people. When this messenger appears to people the ground the messenger is standing on becomes holy. Also, the messenger speaks in the first person as God Himself. The people that see this messenger claim that they have seen God Himself.

There are many folk that believe the messenger of the Lord is the Word, and the Word of course is God.

Click to expand...

Thanks for you're reply. I can't really address it properly because a discussion of the Trinity is not allowed on this board. However, I can say that the apostle John said that it was the Son who has made the Father known.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Jn. 1:18 KJV)

John says no man has seen God at any time, but rather the Son has made Him known. How could people say they've seen God when John said no one has seen God? In this passage "God" is obviously are reference to the Father, since John differentiates between God and the Son. So how could people have seen God and yet not seen the Father? The only way I can reconcile this is by looking at the word "God" or "Theos". The word "Theos" means deity. It is a title not a name. Since the Father is Deity His offspring too is Deity. If the Son who made the Father known is Deity (God) then people could have see Deity (God) and still not have seen the Father. However, if those people saw God (Deity), they could have seen no one other than the Son because Paul tells us that the Father cannot be seen. Therefore it is only the Son that can be seen. This leaves no other option than the Angel of the Lord being the Son.
I agree that messenger is the proper translation. Angel invokes specific ideas in people's minds and often leads to misunderstandings.

13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;1
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Tim. 6:13-16 KJV)

iwbswiaihl said:

I am probably slow, but this post seems to lack much if any truth, other that the posted scriptures which really should have the references removed just for the sake of reading the post, of course, that is just my opinion.

Click to expand...

The Bible reference I use is the 1599 Geneva Bible before being reformed to please King James. There are things removed that spoke against world authorities, and the court had them removed. Sorry about the references confusing you. They are footnotes.

Hello Butch.

However, I can say that the apostle John said that it was the Son who has made the Father known.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Jn. 1:18 KJV)

John says no man has seen God at any time, but rather the Son has made Him known. How could people say they've seen God when John said no one has seen God? In this passage "God" is obviously are reference to the Father, since John differentiates between God and the Son. So how could people have seen God and yet not seen the Father? The only way I can reconcile this is by looking at the word "God" or "Theos". The word "Theos" means deity. It is a title not a name. Since the Father is Deity His offspring too is Deity. If the Son who made the Father known is Deity (God) then people could have see Deity (God) and still not have seen the Father. However, if those people saw God (Deity), they could have seen no one other than the Son because Paul tells us that the Father cannot be seen. Therefore it is only the Son that can be seen. This leaves no other option than the Angel of the Lord being the Son.

Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you said, though this topic gets complex quickly.

The Word becomes the Son at Bethlehem, before Bethlehem, the Son cannot be called the literal Son of God. Because the Word has not assumed the identity of the Son until Bethlehem. Therefore, this 'messenger of the Lord', that we see in the Old Testament must be the Word that John revealed.

Would you agree that YHWH (Exodus 3:14) must be the Word also?

klutedavid said:

Hello Butch.

I agree with much of what you said, though this topic gets complex quickly.

The Word becomes the Son at Bethlehem, before Bethlehem, the Son cannot be called the literal Son of God. Because the Word has not assumed the identity of the Son until Bethlehem. Therefore, this 'messenger of the Lord', that we see in the Old Testament must be the Word that John revealed.

Would you agree that YHWH (Exodus 3:14) must be the Word also?

Click to expand...

I am not sure that Jesus was not the Son of God before He came to earth as man. He has always been the 2nd member of the Godhead. He is eternal. And is the Word as John 1:1 states but as it also says and He is God. It is included in the Nicene creed of 325 a. d. Nevertheless it has been said by others before almost in every century that neither side should hold the others to agree one way or the other. It is written that before the world was created God had chosen us in Christ, Eph 1:3-4.

T.S.Bland said:

The Trinity is present in the entire Bible.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. I'm Trinitarian as the day is long but that isn't true. The Old Testament is not explicit about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Israelites wouldn't have understood the idea of the Trinity even though we obviously now know that it's solid theology.

thecolorsblend said:

No it isn't. I'm Trinitarian as the day is long but that isn't true. The Old Testament is not explicit about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Israelites wouldn't have understood the idea of the Trinity even though we obviously now know that it's solid theology.

Click to expand...

Baby steps here..
Genesis 1:1 God the Father
Genesis 1:2 God the Holy Spirit
Genesis 1:3 God the Son
That about says it.
I'm not going to walk you through the rest. Like Ragu "it's in there".

thecolorsblend said:

No it isn't. I'm Trinitarian as the day is long but that isn't true. The Old Testament is not explicit about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Israelites wouldn't have understood the idea of the Trinity even though we obviously now know that it's solid theology.

Click to expand...

Let's see if we can not lengthen that day to see the Trinity is actually in the OT. First is it not plain in Gen 1:2 And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Ps 104:30 You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth. Isa 40:13 Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord,
Or as His counselor has taught Him? Judges 6:34 But the Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon;
Isaiah 61:1 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; and will close with this one; Pro 30:1-4 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, his utterance. This man declared to Ithiel—to Ithiel and Ucal: 2 Surely I am more stupid than any man, And do not have the understanding of a man. 3 I neither learned wisdom Nor have knowledge of the Holy One. 4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know? I believe this does show the Trinity was active in the OT and there are many more verses that could be shown, but in the same token could agree with you that they were not aware of the Godhead like we see in the NT and that may be your point.

I'm with the powers that be. Trinity has no place to be discussed in this forum. I'll respect the rules.

T.S.Bland said:

I'm not going to walk you through the rest.

Click to expand...

iwbswiaihl said:

Let's see if we can not lengthen that day

Click to expand...

When either of you can find an OT passage that explicitly affirms the personhood of God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, let me know. Posting a bunch of random nonsense that hints at, suggests, implies or whatever else doesn't really establish much of anything useful.

oh well

klutedavid said:

Hello Butch.

I agree with much of what you said, though this topic gets complex quickly.

The Word becomes the Son at Bethlehem, before Bethlehem, the Son cannot be called the literal Son of God. Because the Word has not assumed the identity of the Son until Bethlehem. Therefore, this 'messenger of the Lord', that we see in the Old Testament must be the Word that John revealed.

Would you agree that YHWH (Exodus 3:14) must be the Word also?

Click to expand...

I agree that the messenger of the Lord is the Word that John revealed. However, I disagree that He was not the Son until Bethlehem. Solomon acknowledges the Son of God before Bethlehem.

4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? (Prov. 30:4 KJV)

Also, in the early faith, the early Christians acknowledged that the Son was begotten before all worlds. Here is the opening of the Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Regarding your question about YHWY, a discussion of the Trinity is not allowed this board.

mmbattlestar said:

I believe he was, and is the God Yahweh, and the God from Genesis and all of the other OT. Why? Several reasons. For one, scripture says so. John 1:1-3, John 1:18, John 5:37, John 6:46 states: John 1:1-3, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:18,
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." John 5:37, "And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form," John 6:46, "No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father." So we learn from these four verses that Jesus is God, who was always with God the Father, and he created everything we see along with the Father. We also learn that nobody has ever seen God except for Jesus. Even Jesus himself states that nobody has seen God the Father but him. But wait! Adam and Eve saw God! Isaiah saw God! Ezekiel saw God! Countless people of the OT saw God! So, either Jesus is lying or Jesus is stating that he is the mighty Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament that created the heavens and the Earth and all we see around us. The Jews knew what Jesus was saying when he stated these things along with when he said in John 8:58: "Before Abraham was born, I am!" To which the Jews tried to stone him for because God called himself "I am" in Exodus 3:14. "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" So what do you think? Was Jesus the God of the Old Testament? Or was Jesus just plain a God along with the Father and God the Father is the God of the OT? Tell me what you think. I'm curious.

Click to expand...

John 20:17 says your God and my God; John 14:28 says the Father is greater; 1 Corinthians 15:28 says the son is subject to the Father; 1 Corinthians 3:23 says God is the head of Christ; Ephesians 1:20 says Jesus will sit on the right hand of the Throne of God. Any more questions?I have 47 scriptures, if you want.

Adstar said:

Ah but Note: There was only One Voice speaking Baby Cottontail...

Click to expand...

Yes. It is the Father's voice.

Adstar said:

Not sure what you think the Oneness doctrine is? Do you think it is a denial of the trinity? Because as far as i can see no one is denying scripture like 1 John 5, 7... There are three and those three are One.. That is an expression of the trinity right there...

Click to expand...

Yes, Oneness doctrine denies the trinity because it denies the Personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It denies the Athanasian Creed, which is how the Trinity has been defined by Christians for centuries.

The issue isn't that you are denying that the three are one -- it is that you are denying the Personhood of each.

Adstar said:

So Either the NSAB or the KJV are false Bibles... Both cannot be the Word of God... Either one has added to the Word of God and therefore it is cursed or the other has taken away from the Word of God and it is cursed.. There is no half way compromise on this issue.. Let each person declare what the Word of God is... And let God judge.. In the end the truth will not be denied..

Click to expand...

That does not follow. Neither the NASB nor the KJV are false Bibles. They were just translated using different copies of the Greek. The translators for the NASB had access to older manuscripts than those who translated the KJV. Neither is "false." The translations for the NASB just wanted to be scholarly accurate. The translators for the KJV were as accurate as they could be with what they had.

Both indeed are the Word of God. The same gospel message is contained in both.

You are creating a false dichotomy.

klutedavid said:

Hello BC.

You must believe in the death and resurrection of the Christ to be saved.

The exact identity of the messiah is not as crucial.

Christians believe in the name of Jesus the messiah to be forgiven and saved.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that a person only needs to believe that Jesus is the Messiah to be saved?

Phantasman said:

Christ means to be christened by the Holy Spirit (the Chrism, baptized by fire). His saints are christened by the same Spirit. He is the only begotten son of the Father, and we become sons of the Father as well. begotten by the Spirit.

Romans:
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

John:
1 He came a]">[a]unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 b]">[b]But as many as received him, to them he gave c]">[c]prerogative to be the sons of God, even to them that believe in his Name,
13 Which are born not of blood, nor of the d]">[d]will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

You keep on this flesh thing. The flesh profits nothing. Orthodox Christianity is flesh based. The early Christians were divided by those who wanted fleshly power over spiritual knowledge. It's not hard to see, just hard to accept.

Allow me to show you something. Read 1 John and what do you see?

1 John:
Hereby shall ye know the Spirit of God, Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.

The words "is come". How do you see them. That Jesus "came" in the flesh? Why doesn't it just say "came". Believing Jesus was flesh does nothing.

Let's change it to "comes". Every the spirit (small s, meaning YOUR spirit,) that confesses that Jesus Christ comes into the flesh, is of God.

Romans:
Now ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, because the spirit of God dwelleth in you: but if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, the same is not his.

Romans:
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead, because of sin: but the Spirit is life for righteousness sake.

You keep on this idea of flesh. You've got to see the difference or it's going to pull you where it's going.

Click to expand...

I see "flesh" in 1 John as talking about Jesus being fully human. To deny that Jesus is fully human, actual human -- to actually have a real, physical body.

You're creating a false dichotomy between spirit and physical body.

Baby Cottontail said:

I see "flesh" in 1 John as talking about Jesus being fully human. To deny that Jesus is fully human, actual human -- to actually have a real, physical body.

You're creating a false dichotomy between spirit and physical body.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. What matters is the words he said, before and after the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit that leads us spiritually. Christs body is the church, and we ate his flesh as he instructed. You are following the God of the flesh. You need to move on to spirit. Let the dead bury their dead.

John:
It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, are spirit and life.

You have yet to die to the physical body, as Christ did. You seek the (truth of) flesh.

Paul says many times:

For they that are after the flesh, savor the things of the flesh: but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Now ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, because the spirit of God dwelleth in you: but if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, the same is not his.

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye mortify the deeds of the body by the Spirit, ye shall live.

Are ye so foolish, that after ye have begun in the Spirit, ye would now be made perfect by the flesh?

22 In that body of his c]">[c]flesh through death, to make you holy and unblameable, and without fault in his sight.

To desire and/or worship the flesh is ignorance of spiritual truth.

Baby Cottontail said:

So you're saying that a person only needs to believe that Jesus is the Messiah to be saved?

Click to expand...

Hello Baby Cottontail.

To believe in Jesus was the goal of the good news that the apostles taught. The simple truth that Jesus was crucified and then was resurrected on the third day. And that by believing in Jesus we receive forgiveness of our sins, that is what the apostles taught.

John 6:40
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:47
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

All other doctrines in Christianity are secondary to this primary doctrine, the death and resurrection of the Christ.

Dartman said:

The most natural definition of LOGOS is words

Click to expand...

It most certainly is not. LOGOS is not plural.

Saved.By.Grace said:

In Genesis 16, the Angel of the Lord speaks with Hagar, and does so as Almighty God, not that He was sent as a representative from God, but as HIMSELF GOD.

Click to expand...

The Angel of the LORD speaks for God. Thus the text is sometimes written as though sometimes the LORD is speaking.

Saved.By.Grace said:

Before you make serious accusations about "misquoting", you should check your facts. The Hebrew word used here, is the verb "bara", which is masculine in gender, and PLURAL in number. So it is "CREATORS".You should not always trust the English translators to get everything right! Likewise, in Job 35:10, we read, "God my Maker", where a different Hebrew verb is used, "asah", and here is also masculine in gender, and PLURAL in number! Literally, "God my Makers". In Job 33:4, we read, "The Spirit of God has made (asah) me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.", where the Act of Creation is seen by the Holy Spirit. Hence Job could write, "my MAKERS"! In Psalm 102, verses 24-27 speak of Almighty God as The Creator. In Hebrews 1, verses 10-12, God the Father is Speaking to Jesus Christ, where He takes the words of this Psalm, and applies them to Jesus Christ as The Creator! So we have the Three Persons as Creating, which fully agrees with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God (masculine, PLURAL) Created the heavens and the earth".

Click to expand...

Given that every translation I know of translates it differently, meaning that the consensus of scholars disagrees with you, I think I'll go with the consensus of scholars rather than with you.